<p>"Secondly, there are people such as some on this board that are too stupid to see the satire in it and wholeheartedly embrace it’s representation as pure observation or straightforward journalism "</p>
<p>“Because of the stupidity factor – or overweaning seriousness on the part of some people”</p>
<p>Why be coy & insulting at the same time? Do you fancy yourself as subtle? </p>
<p>Are those of us who understand the satire yet disapprove and/or veer towards other kinds of humor (humor more subtle, by the way) – are we “stupid”? (And you’re a genius?)</p>
<p>(Not.)</p>
<p>Is it possible to be responsible while still being humorous? Yes. Did the New Yorker do it? No.</p>
<p>Given the fact that the New Yorker is not primarily a satirical publication (as opposed to, say, The Onion) – and given the overt racism inherent in the caricatures – I think that this is way out of line. And given the statement from the McCain campaign – (“We completely agree with the Obama campaign”) – its obvious that there is no real argument to be made.</p>
<p>Right-wing stereotypes? It seems at least some came from the Clinton campaign.</p>
<p>In this day and time this caricature it is out of line. It’s way past funny and into insulting. Making a political candidate for POTUS into one of the groups the United States is at war with is NOT amusing.</p>
<p>The cover is satire, the most important part is the article they did on Obama;it is far more damaging than the cover.</p>
<p>The first amendment shouldn’t be suspended for anyone. The 4th Amendment has already being shattered by the Bush administration with Obama’s help, we can’t afford to touch the 1st amendment.</p>
<p>I beginning to sense that any criticism of Obama is unacceptable by a lot of people. If he can’t be criticize now, can we do it if he becomes the president? Why should he be treated any different than other politicians? I am afraid that if he becomes the president anything article about him would have to be approved by the White House before it can be printed.</p>
<p>The New Yorker under the Constitution can produce the cover that they did. That doesn’t make the cover acceptable to people who understand what kind of satire/humor, etc. is appropriate in today’s world.</p>
<p>I’d feel the same way if they had, for instance, a cover that satirized McCain and his wife as traitors. </p>
<p>Some things just aren’t funny.</p>
<p>A publication can be within the bounds of the Constitution and still be in very poor taste.</p>
<p>The New Yorker cover doesn’t criticize Obama; it criticizes people who believe ridiculous rumors about him. But the editors of the New Yorker are too out of touch to realize that some of those people won’t realize they are being criticized. They are like the people who used to identify with Archie Bunker.</p>
<p>Yes, the problem is that the nitwits who think that Obama is a terrorist Muslim will see the cover and won’t realize it’s satire. They also won’t bother to read the New Yorker or any other credible news source.</p>
<p>Anyone – including people who aren’t too bright – can see the cover of the New Yorker on a newstand, and come to the conclusion that the cover accurately reflects who Obama is.</p>
<p>After all, there are people who believed the covers of National Enquirer that featured space aliens and pictures of other improbable things. </p>
<p>People who don’t like Obama or have a bias against him for reasons other than policy/politics are going to use any excuse to vote against him. There was a telling CNN feature during the weekend wherein the correspondent, reporting from Nashville TN, spoke to a white woman who insisted that Obama is a muslim. Even more telling was her companion, a fellow who stated that ‘I’m an old fashioned southern boy; I can’t see voting for a Black man.’ The rest of his comments were quite offensive, and thus I have no interest in repeating them.</p>
<p>Golf Digest doesn’t cater to most Americans, but the editor still got canned for his insensitivity. Sometimes when you push the envelope you push it to far and get in trouble.</p>
<p>Golf Digest is owned by CondeNet, guess who owns the New Yorker…CondeNet</p>
<p>The best part is that the cover accurately reflects who Barack Hussein Obama will be in the minds of the voter on election day when the Republicans and the media get done lampooning him. </p>
<p>He’ll join a long list of “out-of-touch” Democratic Party candidates like Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry turned into laughing stock cartoon characters. The handwringing will commence as Democrats, once again, wonder “what happened”? Democrats never understand why all those people could be so “stupid” to reject them.</p>
<p>Bandit: Democrats are under the illusion that the “liberal” media is somehow their friend. They have no clue that the “liberal” media has been a key player in turning their candidates into laughing stock caracatures and destroying them. Even after they watch the media destroy their beloved Saint Obama, it still won’t dawn on them that the media is the most corrosive influence in American politics, the main reason for polarization, and no friend of either political party.</p>
<p>If Obama was anything like most young kids from his generation, it would be almost inconceivable to believe that he was a religious Muslim, or Wiccan, or Christian at 7 or 8 years old.</p>
<p>He was a kid going to school, hoping to be accepted. Period.</p>
<p>And it seems fool-hearty if not disingenuous for legitimate news organizations like the LA Times to imply anything else about Obama-the-boy other than that he was a kid in a different culture making the best of it.</p>
<p>At the same time I think that CNN is engaged in the same kind of flimflam reporting in drudging up some “genius” to say that the black candidate “must be a Muslim,” in order to portray their foil, the “Ugly American”, as a stump-jumming rube that always gets what s/he deserves. </p>
<p>I expect this sort of thing from The New Yorker; their editorial position lives on portraying average Americans as unregenerate Archie Bunkers and Fred Sanfords forever assaulting their refined manners. They are, quite simply, better than the rest of us and believe it to be their mission to remind their readers of this “fact”.</p>
<p>-</p>
<p>If Obama looses this election, it will be because the geniuses in the media, and the most “engaged” Obama supporters amongst us, saw this election as a chance to prove what they have always believed: that Americans are racist xenophobes not ready --like them-- to have tea with their progressive counterparts in Europe, and certain chichi haunts in NYC, San Francisco and Boston.</p>